[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b67ab7b5-bb75-4443-1cfc-bb905ac09a15@citrix.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 19:27:32 +0000
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
To: "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] PCI: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
On 20/03/2019 18:27, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/proc.c b/drivers/pci/proc.c
> index 6fa1627ce08d..445b51db75b0 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/proc.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c
> @@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ static long proc_bus_pci_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
> }
> /* If arch decided it can't, fall through... */
> #endif /* HAVE_PCI_MMAP */
> + /* fall through */
Surely it would be better to transpose the #endif and its previous line,
than to add a second fallthrough ?
~Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists